Advertisement

Marine Biology

, 166:154 | Cite as

Comparing the effects of different coloured artificial illumination on diurnal fish assemblages in the lower mesophotic zone

  • Matthew J. BirtEmail author
  • Marcus Stowar
  • Leanne M. Currey-Randall
  • Dianne L. McLean
  • Karen J. Miller
Short Note

Abstract

Artificial illumination is required when sampling with baited remote underwater video systems (BRUVS) in the lower mesophotic zone beyond ~ 90 m depth, yet little is known of how the choice of lighting influences fish assemblages and affects survey results in this zone. Here we use BRUVS equipped with the commonly used GoPro action camera to compare the composition and abundance of diurnal fish assemblages sampled under artificial Royal blue (~ 450 nm), Deep red (~ 660 nm) and natural day white light (~ 5600 K) in the lower mesophotic zone of the north-west shelf of Australia (19° 14.724′S 117° 20.286′E). No significant differences were detected in the fish assemblage composition or the number of species when surveyed using blue, red or white light at our study location. A greater mean total abundance of fish was observed using red light compared with white and blue light, however, individual species showed varied responses to the different light colours. When using consumer-grade action cameras such as GoPros, white light was shown to be far superior in image quality (and therefore ease of fish identification) compared to red and blue light. We recommend sampling diurnal mesophotic fish assemblages using a wavelength of light based on the survey objectives and the capabilities of the camera selected.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was part of the Seabed Biodiversity and Habitats Research Theme within the North West Shoals to Shore Research Program, a collaboration between the Australian Institute of Marine Science and Santos (https://www.aims.gov.au/nw-shoals-to-shore/seabed-habitats-and-biodiversity). We would like to thank the master and crew of the RV Solander along with all other field support personnel. We would like to thank the two reviewers for their constructive revisions which improved this manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by Santos and the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Matthew Birt declares that he has no conflict of interest. Marcus Stowar declares that he has no conflict of interest. Leanne Currey-Randall declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dianne McLean declares that she has no conflict of interest. Karen Miller declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for sampling, care and experimental use of organisms for the study have been followed.

References

  1. Abesamis RA, Langlois T, Birt M, Thillainath E, Bucol AA, Arceo HO, Russ GR (2018) Benthic habitat and fish assemblage structure from shallow to mesophotic depths in a storm-impacted marine protected area. Coral Reefs 37:81–97.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-017-1635-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MJ (2006) Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62:245–253.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00440.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson MJ, Robinson J (2003) Generalized discriminant analysis based on distances. Aust N Z J Stat 45:301–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA + for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson MJ, Crist TO, Chase JM, Vellend M, Inouye BD, Freestone AL, Sanders NJ, Cornell HV, Comita LS, Davies KF, Harrison SP, Kraft NJB, Stegen JC, Swenson NG (2011) Navigating the multiple meanings of beta diversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist. Ecol Lett 14:19–28.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01552.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Birt MJ, Harvey ES, Langlois TJ (2012) Within and between day variability in temperate reef fish assemblages: learned response to baited video. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 416–417:92–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2012.02.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bond T, Partridge JC, Taylor MD, Cooper TF, Mclean L (2018) The influence of depth and a subsea pipeline on fish assemblages and commercially fished species. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207703 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Cappo M, Harvey E, Malcolm H, Speare P (2003) Potential of video techniques to monitor diversity, abundance and size of fish in studies of marine protected areas. In: Beumer JP, Grant A, Smith DC (eds) Aquatic protected areas. What works best and how do we know? vol 1. University of Queensland, Queensland, pp 455–464Google Scholar
  9. Clarke KR, Gorley R (2006) Primer v6: user manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E Ltd, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke TM, Whitmarsh SK, Fairweather PG, Huveneers C (2019) Overlap in fish assemblages observed using pelagic and benthic baited remote underwater video stations. Mar Freshw Res 70:870–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fermin AC, Soronay GA (1997) Effects of different illumination levels on zooplankton abundance, feeding periodicity, growth and survival of the Asian sea bass, Lates calcarifer (Bloch), fry in illuminated floating nursery cages. Aquaculture 157:227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitzpatrick C, McLean D, Harvey ES (2013) Using artificial illumination to survey nocturnal reef fish. Fish Res 146:41–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2013.03.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forward R (1988) Diel vertical migration: zooplankton photobiology and behaviour. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 26:361–393Google Scholar
  14. Harvey ES, Newman SJ, McLean DL, Cappo M, Meeuwig JJ, Skepper CL (2012a) Comparison of the relative efficiencies of stereo-BRUVs and traps for sampling tropical continental shelf demersal fishes. Fish Res 125–126:108–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2012.01.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harvey ES, Butler JJ, McLean DL, Shand J (2012b) Contrasting habitat use of diurnal and nocturnal fish assemblages in temperate Western Australia. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 426–427:78–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2012.05.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Langlois T, Williams J, Monk J, Bouchet P, Currey L, Goetze J, Harasti D, Huveneers C, Ierodiaconou D, Malcolm H, Whitmore S (2018) Marine sampling field manual for benthic stereo BRUVS (Baited Remote Underwater Videos). In: Przeslawski R, Foster S (eds) Field manuals for marine sampling to monitor Australian waters. National Environmental Science Programme (NESP), pp 82–104. https://www.nespmarine.edu.au/sites/default/files/_PUBLIC_/FieldManuals_NESPMarineHub_Chapter5_BRUV_v1.pdf
  17. Levine JS, Macnichol EF Jr (1982) Color vision in fishes. Sci Am 246:140–149.  https://doi.org/10.2307/24966528 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marchesan M, Spoto M, Verginella L, Ferrero EA (2005) Behavioural effects of artificial light on fish species of commercial interest. Fish Res 73:171–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2004.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Myers E, Harvey E, Saunders B, Travers M (2016) Fine-scale patterns in the day, night and crepuscular composition of a temperate reef fish assemblage. Mar Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Raymond EH, Widder EA (2007) Behavioral responses of two deep-sea fish species to red, far-red, and white light. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 350:291–298.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rocha LA, Pinheiro HT, Shepherd B, Papastamatiou YP, Luiz OJ, Rocha LA, Pyle RL, Bongaerts P (2018) Mesophotic coral ecosystems are threatened and ecologically distinct from shallow water reefs. Science 361:281–284.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq1614 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rolim FA, Langlois T, Rodrigues PFC, Bond T, Motta S, Neves LM, Gadig OBF (2019) Network of small no-take marine reserves reveals greater abundance and body size of fisheries target species. PLoS ONE 14:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Von der Emde G, Mogdans J, Kapoor BG (2004) The senses of fish: adaptations for the reception of natural stimuli. Narosa Publishers, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Warrant EJ, Collin SP, Locket NA (2003) Eye design and vision in deep-sea fishes. In: Collin SP, Marshall NJ (eds) Sensory processing in aquatic environments. Springer, New York, NY, pp 303–322.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-22628-6_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Whitmarsh SK, Fairweather PG, Huveneers C (2017) What is big BRUVver up to? Methods and uses of baited underwater video. Rev Fish Biol Fish 27:53–73.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-016-9450-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Whitmarsh SK, Fairweather PG, Huveneers C (2019) Lack of light colour effects when sampling fish at night in low visibility environments. J Fish Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14058 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Widder EA, Robison BH, Reisenbichler KR, Haddock SHD (2005) Using red light for in situ observations of deep-sea fishes. Deep Res Part I Oceanogr Res Pap 52:2077–2085.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2005.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Institute of Marine ScienceIndian Ocean Marine Research CentreCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations